Aus_Snow
First Post
Yep. And this holds true for all 'old D&D', right on up to (and including) v3.5 [and Pathfinder / 3.PF, for that matter]. Trial by fire, like it or lump it.
Is there a Relationship between Game Lethality and Role Play?
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
Barastrondo
First Post
System matters, but player psychology matters more. You can provide penalties for indulging in combat and rewards for avoiding combat, but if the rewards aren't as enjoyable to the players as indulging in a good solid combat with moderate penalties for failure, the players will probably not enjoy the game as much.
I've known players who wanted entirely different things out of a game depending on whether we were playing on a weekend or a weeknight. On a weekend, they were all for some exploration, intrigue, complicated interpersonal dynamics and tough intellectual challenges. On a weeknight, after a day's work and another to look forward to the next day, it was less about challenge and more about unwinding.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
I don't think Lethality has a direct impact on roleplaying, but it does have a direct impact on the game experience. For example:
Gamist--In a exploration/problem solving oriented game, high lethality ups the stakes and the game just isn't as interesting without it, while in an action/combat focused game high lethality will lead to frustration and burnout.
Narrative--In a roleplaying focused game, high lethality encourages players to find non-violent(roleplaying) solutions, while in a story focused game high lethality, specifically high character turnover negatively impacts the story.
Simulationist--High lethality works well when simulatining real world physics, but works less well at simulating cinematics.
Character Creation--Quick and painless character creation goes well with high lethality, but complex and deep character creation combined with high lethality tends to end in frustration when you spend more time building characters than playing them.
I don't think high lethality is connected to better roleplaying independant of the system and what game you are trying to play.
Gamist--In a exploration/problem solving oriented game, high lethality ups the stakes and the game just isn't as interesting without it, while in an action/combat focused game high lethality will lead to frustration and burnout.
Narrative--In a roleplaying focused game, high lethality encourages players to find non-violent(roleplaying) solutions, while in a story focused game high lethality, specifically high character turnover negatively impacts the story.
Simulationist--High lethality works well when simulatining real world physics, but works less well at simulating cinematics.
Character Creation--Quick and painless character creation goes well with high lethality, but complex and deep character creation combined with high lethality tends to end in frustration when you spend more time building characters than playing them.
I don't think high lethality is connected to better roleplaying independant of the system and what game you are trying to play.
jbear
First Post
I'm not sure what I think about the question. I think it can largely depend on the player's preferred play style.
However I think lethality adds something to the game.
I was challenged by one of my player's after their group made a fatal blunder and were on the verge of a TPK and I pulled a punch so they were able to scrape through and win in the end. (In my defence, I had just bought eveyone a mini of their characters as a gift, and spent 8 consecutive evenings preparing for what lay ahead of them)
His comment was basically: 'Love your game, but what it lacks is deadly consecuences'.
I have made an effort to not be so soft over the last three sessions. Noone has died, but the encounters have been epic. That same player survived instant death 3 times, and all i needed was 9 or more to drag his immobilized body off through a dark portal (instant death). I rolled 8, 4 and 7...
In the last session, the completely erroneous instructions given by the group's dwarven cleric (third critical failure during an important skill challenge) lead to infuriating the semi-summoned manifestation of a demi-god who is now hell bent on bringing his temple down upon their heads. (The same thing that almost dragged the player's barbarian off to instant death - reskinned Thing in the Portal from KotS if anyone is curious)
The player's couldn't believe they had failed so irrevocably. That their options seemed to be flee or die. They haven't stopped talking about it. The Dwarf's player came to me today and informed me she plans to stay and try and redeem herself, even if it means certain death! he said she hadn't been able to sleep all night, running it all over in her head again and again. That's awesome! (not that she hadn't sleep, but that it had made such an impact on her)
I guess the neutrality combined with the complete disposition to kill adds something to the experience. I haven't killed anyone but the players perceive the change in disposition. It has them jumpy, nervous, excited. There is a buzz.
I have no interest in making combat so lethal it disuades players from engaging in it. I have several players that love combat. But it should be a risky and deadly enterprise. I love my players to resolve things outside of combat. But I like a mix of both. Puts spice in the blood. The threat should be a real threat. I'm not sure if this adds to roleplaying (my group varies from those that love it to those that dread it), but it adds something. It just shouldn't be sooooo lethal that it's not fun.
Anyway, just my two cents
However I think lethality adds something to the game.
I was challenged by one of my player's after their group made a fatal blunder and were on the verge of a TPK and I pulled a punch so they were able to scrape through and win in the end. (In my defence, I had just bought eveyone a mini of their characters as a gift, and spent 8 consecutive evenings preparing for what lay ahead of them)
His comment was basically: 'Love your game, but what it lacks is deadly consecuences'.
I have made an effort to not be so soft over the last three sessions. Noone has died, but the encounters have been epic. That same player survived instant death 3 times, and all i needed was 9 or more to drag his immobilized body off through a dark portal (instant death). I rolled 8, 4 and 7...
In the last session, the completely erroneous instructions given by the group's dwarven cleric (third critical failure during an important skill challenge) lead to infuriating the semi-summoned manifestation of a demi-god who is now hell bent on bringing his temple down upon their heads. (The same thing that almost dragged the player's barbarian off to instant death - reskinned Thing in the Portal from KotS if anyone is curious)
The player's couldn't believe they had failed so irrevocably. That their options seemed to be flee or die. They haven't stopped talking about it. The Dwarf's player came to me today and informed me she plans to stay and try and redeem herself, even if it means certain death! he said she hadn't been able to sleep all night, running it all over in her head again and again. That's awesome! (not that she hadn't sleep, but that it had made such an impact on her)
I guess the neutrality combined with the complete disposition to kill adds something to the experience. I haven't killed anyone but the players perceive the change in disposition. It has them jumpy, nervous, excited. There is a buzz.
I have no interest in making combat so lethal it disuades players from engaging in it. I have several players that love combat. But it should be a risky and deadly enterprise. I love my players to resolve things outside of combat. But I like a mix of both. Puts spice in the blood. The threat should be a real threat. I'm not sure if this adds to roleplaying (my group varies from those that love it to those that dread it), but it adds something. It just shouldn't be sooooo lethal that it's not fun.
Anyway, just my two cents
Last edited:
Remathilis
Legend
Keep in mind that the effect lethality will have on RP despends not only on the game and system, but the individual player.
Some players will seek non-combat alternatives and develop PCs less geared toward combat and more toward stealth/speaking, etc. Some will jack their PCs up to inhuman levels in order to "win" combat. Some will stop caring and start "tooning" their PCs, and when they die they up the Roman numeral after their PC's name and continue.
Keep in mind not everyone comes to the game table for the same effect. Some like deep immersion in storylines and talking with NPCs. Some like to solve puzzles and match wits with the DM (or module writers). Some like to explore the DMs campaign world, and some like to blow off steam and roll d20's in melee. None of these are bad, and you're likely to tick somebody off if you decide to reward one and punish another. But if your group tends to lean on one style or another, its certainly desirable to move the game in that direction.
Just don't expect it to work in every campaign or with every player...
Some players will seek non-combat alternatives and develop PCs less geared toward combat and more toward stealth/speaking, etc. Some will jack their PCs up to inhuman levels in order to "win" combat. Some will stop caring and start "tooning" their PCs, and when they die they up the Roman numeral after their PC's name and continue.
Keep in mind not everyone comes to the game table for the same effect. Some like deep immersion in storylines and talking with NPCs. Some like to solve puzzles and match wits with the DM (or module writers). Some like to explore the DMs campaign world, and some like to blow off steam and roll d20's in melee. None of these are bad, and you're likely to tick somebody off if you decide to reward one and punish another. But if your group tends to lean on one style or another, its certainly desirable to move the game in that direction.
Just don't expect it to work in every campaign or with every player...
MadMaligor
First Post
Some very interesting conversation here. Currently one of the 4E games I am a DM for involves only two players. The lethality question is much more of a concern than normal. I adjusted rules for henchmen/hirelings for one PC, and tweaked Arcane Familiars for another. They both only wanted to run one character, and the tweaks are working nicely so far.
So far the challenge has been adjusting scenarios so that many options are available, but I try not to water things down combat wise. It really creates a tense atmosphere but it does slow down pre combat roleplay because they discuss in detail what they are going to do (when I rule time allows for them to do so).
So far the challenge has been adjusting scenarios so that many options are available, but I try not to water things down combat wise. It really creates a tense atmosphere but it does slow down pre combat roleplay because they discuss in detail what they are going to do (when I rule time allows for them to do so).
Hussar
Legend
Oh please. Let's not turn this into an edition thing. For one, it's already been abundantly shown that 4e combat is pretty darn lethal. Easily as lethal as 3e, so, come on, leave the edition warz crap at the door.
Bumbles - I think you have it right. You definitely need the carrot. I was looking more at the mechanics end of things, which usually only includes the stick.
Reading through the answers, I'm thinking that the answer is not a simple yes or no, but rather a maybe, which also depends on a number of other factors.
Hussar
Legend
Sorry if I jumped in there a bit quick, but the fact that you deliberately excluded 4e from the idea of higher lethality kinda led me to think that. There is an implication in your post that 4e leads to the opposite of "some combat even with good strategies to avoid pointless fights." which, I took to mean that 4e is nothing but a string of poor strategy and pointless fights.
Out of curiousity, why did you exclude 4e?
Out of curiousity, why did you exclude 4e?
Similar Threads
